Utopia

by Daryl Dominic Tan

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has always tried to make it his heaven." - F. Hoelderlin

It's an undisputed fact that one of the most contentious issues hotly debated and argued frequently among men of stature is the perennial topic of “How to govern” and “How a model society should look like”. Often times political philosophers, politicians, lawmakers, and visionaries alike dream of building a utopia; a paradise; a perfect and harmonious society, but what exactly constitutes "Paradise"? What requirements must a society meet in order for it to be regarded as a utopia? Has it ever occurred to these thinkers that one man’s idea of heaven is likely to be another man’s idea of hell – the primary reason why individual liberty is so important and why individualism isn’t just an abstraction, but an underlying natural human phenomena itself? The unfortunate fact is that rejection of individualism in favor of social engineering and collectivism pervades almost every aspect of society today – even in minute forms.

The idea of a utopian society has been theorized, hypothesized and bandied about for centuries. Plato, in particular, writes in his book ‘The Republic’ that in order for society to progress and flourish, a class of men called the Philosopher-Kings (interchangeably known as the Philosopher-Guardians) must rule the laypeople as they - supposedly endowed with philosophical insight and wisdom - would know what's best for the "lay class". While there are other methods to read into Plato’s text, this is the most conventional and accepted albeit literalistic approach that many academics subscribe to. Some believe that Plato meant 'Philosopher-Kings' as an analogy for our own moral compasses, but this perspective doesn't hold much water and doesn't change the fact that most people read and agree with Plato’s texts based on the literal interpretation of his vision. It's because of this that many believe Plato’s Republic to be the ideological blueprint for Totalitarianism.

Another utopian society often talked about is St. Thomas More’s ideal vision of a perfect society in his aptly-named book, ‘Utopia’. While St Thomas More was an honorable historical figure who passively rebelled against the unchecked authority of King Henry VIII and lost his head as a result, he writes in his book that a utopian society should be devoid of private property AND privacy in general so that men are obliged to behave well in public view. While it's still a matter of debate as to what St. Thomas More was trying to achieve in his book with some believing it to be a mere work of satire - it was indeed taken seriously by many who saw St. Thomas More’s work as a precursor to Communism.

Enter Karl Marx, quite possibly the most studied political philosopher and economist in modern day academia. Marx envisioned a society in which the Proletarians (the working class) would rise above the Bourgeoisie (the wealthy and middle class) and subjugate the authority of the Bourgeoisie by stripping them of their powers before themselves relinquishing their own acquired power and thus forming a stateless and classless society without any form of private property whatsoever. The problem with Marx’s vision is that it is simply unrealistic and uncharacteristic for any human being to relinquish power once he has gained it. We gather from history that Socialist experiments like the Soviet Union, Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea led to the complete subjugation and oppression of its peoples – antithetical to Marx’s personal view that people would voluntarily embrace the ideology of Marxism thus rendering subjugation from an authoritative source (in this case, the State) unnecessary. These tyrants viewed themselves as incorruptible “messiahs” of the ultimate “utopian” society, and believed that their iron-handed rule according to what they think and feel is best for their people was legitimate. Now, remember Plato’s 'Philosopher-King' theory that we visited earlier?

In a sense, these Socialistic experiments were tried, tested and obviously failed methods of realistically implementing a utopian society according to the visions of Plato, St. Thomas More and Karl Marx. It's imperative to highlight at this point that these experiments didn't work NOT because the leaders implemented a corrupted form of a utopian system as many socialist apologists would try to have you believe. It didn't work because of human nature, simply because liberty is a natural right that all human beings are inclined to want to have, and as seen above, in each of the “utopian” portrayals – there is a necessity for a collective consciousness to exist; a single communitarian agenda shared by ALL men living in such a society so much so that the idea of individual liberty is essentially negated.

People often ask me what a libertarian utopia would look like and what the “perfect” form of society would be in my opinion, and I tell them all the same thing - "Perfect" in a societal sense is a misnomer. The best way for society to fully function the way it should and to provide for human flourishing is to NOT TRY to make it perfect according to ideological visions implemented by autocratic or oligarchic leaders.

When you leave society alone and appreciate it as a natural biosphere or ecosystem (economically speaking), things work out on its own. The Roaring Twenties in the United States of America is testament to this. Adam Smith called this phenomenon the 'Invisible Hand' while F.A. Hayek called it the 'Spontaneous Order' – the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. Other Free Market theorists in general call it Laissez-Faire, a French translation of “Let them do” or “Let it be”. While this isn’t a “perfect” system as Milton Friedman pointed out, and as we have already established that perfection in society does not exist – it does generate the best results for most people.

I’m not ignorant to issues like poverty. But if a Free Market economy triumphs, poverty would be largely eradicated. And while it may still exist (because in every society there are always going to be people left behind), we must appeal to our own moral sense and judgment to aid and assist these people on our own accord. This moral obligation cannot be translated into a legal one for its entire purpose would then be obfuscated.

Some may say I have contradicted myself by offering a view of what society should look like, and therefore it is a form of a utopian view that I have. I rebut this by establishing that the concept of a utopia is axiomatically prescriptive (what man should be). I have merely posited a descriptive view of men (what man is). Human flourishing in society can only be achieved if we appeal to the individual nature of man, not come up with theories of what man should be, but what man is.

If we look at man in this light, then we subscribe to an economic school of thought called the Austrian school. The Austrian school of economics is the study of purposeful human action and promotes the idea that due to an individual’s free will, it is essentially ludicrous and impossible to predict his or her actions, and to do so would be to undermine the dignity of a human being and render him or her no more than a statistical number. The Free Market is in direct accordance with these principles [though it must be established that Free Market economics is NOT synonymous with Austrian Economics]. When the State gets in the way and try to implement their vision or form of what a society should look like, the nature and dignity of man is disregarded, and the word "utopia" in generations to come would simply be another synonym for "dystopia".